An order framing a charge is an interlocutory order as it does not terminate proceedings or conclusively resolve the rights of the parties, rendering such orders immune from appellate challenge under statutory provisions that exclude interlocutory orders.

JUDGMENT :

MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (1) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants to quash the order dated 15th September, 2025 passed by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Deoria in Special Trial No. 132 of 2023 (Badami Devi Vs. Rajan Chaurasia & Others) under Sections 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (da) and 3 (1) (dha) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Khukhundu, District-Deoria, whereby the charges have been framed against the appellants.

3. Before considering the present criminal appeal on merits, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present criminal appeal by submitting that since the order of framing of charge is an interlocutory order, therefore, as per Section 14-A of S.C./S.T. Act itself, the present criminal appeal is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argues that the order of framing the charge cannot be termed as interlocutory order and, therefore, an appeal against framing of charge is maintainable. He further submits that as per Section 14-A of S.C./S.T. Act, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order to the High Court both on facts and law.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the 'framing of charge' is not an interlocutory order, the present criminal appeal is maintainable.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. as well as perused the material available on record including the impugned order.

7. The first issue is up for consideration before this Court as whether the order of framing of charge is an interlocutory order or not?

8. The second issue is as to whether appeal under Section 14-A of S.C./S.T. Act is maintainable against an interlocutory order or not?

Issue No.1

9. For deciding the said issue, it is necessary for this Court to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments from time to time on the said issue.

10. In the case of Ratilal Bhanji Mithani Vs. State of Maharasthtra & Others, (1979) 2 SCC 179 has held that an order of discharge in a warrant case instituted on complaint or police report, can be made only after the process has been issued and before the charge is framed.

11. It is further opined by the Apex Court that once a charge is framed, the Magistrate has no power under section 227 or any other provision of the Code to cancel the charge, and reverse the proceedings to the stage of Section 353 and discharge the accused. The trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. After the framing of charges if the accused pleads not guilty, the Magistrate is required to proceed with the trial in the manner provided in section 254 to 258, to a logical end. Once a charge is framed in a warrant case, instituted either on complaint or a police report, the Magistrate has no power under the Code to discharge the accused, and thereafter, he can either acquit or convict the accused unless he decides to proceed under Section 349 and 562 of the Code of 1892 (which correspond to Sections 325 and 360 of the Code of 1973).

12.